About the author

Mark J. Perry is concurrently a scholar at AEI and a professor of economics and finance at the University of Michigan's Flint campus. He is best known as the creator and editor of the popular economics blog Carpe Diem. At AEI, Perry writes about economic and financial issues for American.com and the AEIdeas blog.

2. I think the only shot the Republican party has is that it adopts many of the libertarian principles. Demographically, it’s going to be very tough for the Republican party the way it’s currently constructed to win a national election… I don’t see it happening in 2016 or 2020. When you have a party that is so reliant on white voters, and that’s just a fact…there’s a problem, with older white voters are dying and the younger white voters are very libertarian… The younger generation is probably the most libertarian and most tolerant and has more libertarian values than any generation in American history…

3. You know, Moore’s law, where we, computer power doubled every 18 months to two years. The leaps are exponentially, I mean like off-the-charts, massively disruptive and big. And that’s not just going to change how a campaign’s waged: it’s why government can’t keep up, laws can’t keep up. Everything now, and the reason why everything feels faster is because of that.

The size of the leap, the size of the leaps now only get bigger and more disruptive. Like, all the disruption of the last thirty years is now gonna be sandwiched into the next two years. I mean life as we know it is really radically going to change.

A lot of old ideas are going to be revealed as obsolete. That may be an opening also for libertarian or some other force: the base orthodoxy of both parties is going to be revealed, I think, as obsolete. Bush spent a lot of money, Obama spent a lot of money.

Discussion: (134 comments)

“there’s a problem, with older white voters are dying and the younger white voters are very libertarian… The younger generation is probably the most libertarian and most tolerant and has more libertarian values in American history”… Joe Trippi

Young white voters trended more heavily Republican than any other racial group in 2012. They are responsible for most of Romney’s improvement with whites vis-à-vis John McCain. In 2008 they were 28 points more Democratic than older voters. Today they are 12 points more Democratic. (It’s also worth noting that young African-Americans, especially males, were slightly more Republican than older African-Americans, a fact I chalked up to statistical noise until Gallup found similar results earlier this year.)

We’ve seen this movie before, in fact. Whites age 59 to 64 years old are part of the most heavily Republican demographic group in today’s electorate. But in 1972, when they were 18 to 24, the age cohort as a whole voted for George McGovern by two points, and whites in this age cohort were certainly significantly more Democratic than the country as a whole. — Real Clear Politics

And where do libertarians stand on the VA? On the vast Pink Rural State Socialist Empire? Gay marriage? Polygamy? Recreational drug use? Euthanasia? The bloated Pentagon and incredibly intrusive and unnecessary NSA? The USDA? The incredibly expansive DHS? Full legal gambling?

Ron Paul is for a radical scaling back of the DoD, VA, and DHS. How will this fly with the GOP? When did the GOP nominate Ron Paul for prezzy?

In other words, if the GOP ever gets serious about spending, and start whacking DoD, VA and the DHS, the Donks are ready to jump in and say they will boost such outlays, so they can pick up those votes. There are 3.7 million vets receiving and average of $15,000 each and every year from VA disability. They vote. You think the Donks or the ‘Phants are going to piss those guys off?

And polygamy? The GOP is for polygamy?

Give me a break. The GOP is for ossification and a bloated corprolitic military. Tax cuts for the rich.

The Donks are no better.

Ron Paul is a breath of fresh air, but when did the GOP draft him for Prezzy?

M– Team GOP is the reason for elephantisis in federal agency spending (DoD, DHS ans VA are GOP boners) and the home of social conservatives who wanyt Government Nanny in your life—even your love life. Please—the GOP as libertarian? And Woody Allen as next heavyweight champeen of d’ world!

As shown by demographer Eric Kaufman of the University of London, religious couples across all cultures are for obvious reasons (including but not limited to abortion) having more children per family than are the secular-irreligious, whose birthrates are below replacement — which means a declining population.

“After 2020,” says Kaufman, the devoutly religious of all faiths “will begin to tip the culture wars to the conservative side.”

The liberal-counterculture Democrats will of course continue fighting this war in the schools and through the media, but have only one major demographic weapon to counter the fertility gap that is working relentlessly against them.

That weapon is illegal immigration. As the population trends move steadily conservative, the liberals must bring into the country and enfranchise new voters who will reliably cast Democratic ballots.

That, and that alone, is the real issue in the battle over immigration and why the Democrats are so bent on gaining amnesty for illegals. All the rest is window dressing. — Investors Business Daily

Why are libertarians and significant chunks of the GOP so eager to hand Obama a major victory by importing millions of new liberals from abroad? Haven’t the liberals we already have done enough damage?

Maybe because we don’t see them as votes? We’re more interested in regularizing their status, through guest worker programs or some such legal status that doesn’t grant the right to vote right away or welfare benefits. Many of these immigrants are religious and socially conservative, which could be a recruiting point for conservatives, but we don’t hold that against them either. 😉

The real issue is competition for labor, not votes. Why does the GOP claim to understand economics better and yet resort to economic protectionism for jobs most Americans don’t want to do anyway?

Then you’re fast asleep while the left is scheming. They absolutely see them as votes.

We’re more interested in regularizing their status, through guest worker programs or some such legal status that doesn’t grant the right to vote right away or welfare benefits.

The Democrats would love that because it will give them the opportunity to wail about “2nd class citizens” and “Jim Crow” and all that. There will be lots of, “good enough to pick your lettuce but not good enough to be a citizen? Racist! ” Regularization is the first step to inevitable citizenship. And a tidal wave of votes for Democrats, as was demonstrated by Reagan’s amnesty of ’86. The GOP was repaid with 30% of the Hispanic vote 2 yrs later.

As for welfare, millions of illegal immigrants are already getting it through their kids or through bureaucratic incompetence. California just introduced a bill to provide state funded health care to illegal immigrants.

Many of these immigrants are religious and socially conservative, which could be a recruiting point for conservatives, but we don’t hold that against them either.

Yes, they are religious. They usually attend the mostly leftist Catholic church that is rife with Liberation Theology strains in Latin America. This would be the same Catholich church that helped Saul Alinsky set up his community organizing machine in Chicago. As for socially conservative, the Hispanic illegitimacy rate is 53%. According to Pew Research, a majority of Hispanics support gay marriage.

Why does the GOP claim to understand economics better and yet resort to economic protectionism for jobs most Americans don’t want to do anyway?

The true cost of those peasant jobs is far more than the wage on the front end. EIC, welfare, health care, education for their kids, crime, dysfunctional cultural traits, etc., are all externalized onto the backs of the citizens.

Besides, a huge % of these jobs are on the verge of being automated, or could already were it not for the “cheap” wages.

Then you’re fast asleep while the left is scheming. They absolutely see them as votes.

They can see them any way they want, nothing is guaranteed and they won’t get to vote for some time.

We’re more interested in regularizing their status, through guest worker programs or some such legal status that doesn’t grant the right to vote right away or welfare benefits.

The Democrats would love that because it will give them the opportunity to wail about “2nd class citizens” and “Jim Crow” and all that. There will be lots of, “good enough to pick your lettuce but not good enough to be a citizen? Racist! ” Regularization is the first step to inevitable citizenship.

Any guest worker program would include the right to vote after sufficient time to naturalize, likely a while. The Rubio plan required at least 10 years just to become a permanent resident, without voting ability. The Dems will have a tough time claiming they should be citizens right away, just as they do now.

And a tidal wave of votes for Democrats, as was demonstrated by Reagan’s amnesty of ’86. The GOP was repaid with 30% of the Hispanic vote 2 yrs later.

Only half of eligible hispanic voters actually vote, which is much lower than other groups. Take away the immigration issue and the hispanic vote likely equalizes. Bush got 40% in 2004, when immigration was the last thing on anyone’s minds.

As for welfare, millions of illegal immigrants are already getting it through their kids or through bureaucratic incompetence. California just introduced a bill to provide state funded health care to illegal immigrants.

The solution is to tighten up those loopholes, not police an impossible border.

Many of these immigrants are religious and socially conservative, which could be a recruiting point for conservatives, but we don’t hold that against them either.

Yes, they are religious. They usually attend the mostly leftist Catholic church that is rife with Liberation Theology strains in Latin America. This would be the same Catholich church that helped Saul Alinsky set up his community organizing machine in Chicago. As for socially conservative, the Hispanic illegitimacy rate is 53%. According to Pew Research, a majority of Hispanics support gay marriage.

Romney took almost 60% of the non-hispanic Catholic vote. I don’t think hispanics largely being Catholic helped Obama, more likely immigration and other issues. As for illegitimacy and gay marriage, those are common views among most Americans these days.

Why does the GOP claim to understand economics better and yet resort to economic protectionism for jobs most Americans don’t want to do anyway?

The true cost of those peasant jobs is far more than the wage on the front end. EIC, welfare, health care, education for their kids, crime, dysfunctional cultural traits, etc., are all externalized onto the backs of the citizens.

Unlikely, but nobody is proposing granting full citizenship to them for some time. Crime is worse under the status quo of a large illegal population. Grant those who want to work guest worker status and it becomes much easier to mop up the real criminals.

Besides, a huge % of these jobs are on the verge of being automated, or could already were it not for the “cheap” wages.

The work will be automated someday, but if there are people willing to work for even less at the moment, that means it currently benefits consumers to take advantage of that cheaper labor cost. Why bother with machines when people are willing to do it even cheaper? If the machines kick in soon, they won’t get past guest worker status and will have to leave. There really is no downside to legalization, if done right. Nobody is talking about amnesty.

“The solution is to tighten up those loopholes, not police an impossible border.”

Yeah, get back to us when you’ve done that.

How about eliminating welfare payments to able bodied Americans that refuse employment? During the Great Depression tens of thousands of Americans moved across the country, at their own expense, just to get jobs picking fruit and vegetables in California’s central valley. All that you are advocating is that we eliminate the expectation of work from public assistance.

As for “policing an impossible border”, any nation that cannot secure its own borders ceases to exist as a nation – period.

They can see them any way they want, nothing is guaranteed and they won’t get to vote for some time.

According to Ann Coulter, For at least a century, there’s never been a period when a majority of immigrants weren’t Democrats.” I guess it’s always possible that the party promising free stuff won’t win the votes of the unskilled poor.

“Some time” goes by in a blink.

The Rubio plan required at least 10 years just to become a permanent resident, without voting ability. The Dems will have a tough time claiming they should be citizens right away, just as they do now.

And yet the Democrats will agitate before the ink is dry, and continue to win the Hispanic vote by massive margins. When he’s signing the bill, Obama will claim the victory for himself, with the feckless GOP standing off to the sides with their d*cks in their hands. And whoa, 10 yrs? That’s like forever.

Take away the immigration issue and the hispanic vote likely equalizes.

There’s exactly zero evidence for that. Again, Coulter: Also surprising, a Pew Research Center poll of all Hispanics, immigrant and citizen alike, found that Hispanics take a dimmer view of capitalism than even people who describe themselves as “liberal Democrats.” While 47 percent of self-described “liberal Democrats” hold a negative view of capitalism, 55 percent of Hispanics do.

Bush got 40% in 2004, when immigration was the last thing on anyone’s minds.

In other words, he lost the Hispanic vote by a landslide. And this was the one time in history a GOP Presidential contender received even that much. And yet even the 40% marker is probably a myth: http://www.apsanet.org/content_9833.cfm

The solution is to tighten up those loopholes, not police an impossible border.

Yeah, I’m sure the Democrat party will sign up for that. “Heartless bastards want children to starve.” The GOP will lose the Hispanic vote by even greater margins.

There’s nothing “impossible” about the border. We just lack the will to do it.

I don’t think hispanics largely being Catholic helped Obama,

Then you’re not aware of how liberal the Catholic church is in Latin America.

more likely immigration and other issues.

Other issues = big government

As for illegitimacy and gay marriage, those are common views among most Americans these days.

Wait, you told me they were socially conservative. Last I checked, social conservatism does not include pro-gay marriage and illegitimacy.

Unlikely, but nobody is proposing granting full citizenship to them for some time.

Again with the “some time.”

Crime is worse under the status quo of a large illegal population.

That’s part of the reason we have a deportation system.

Grant those who want to work guest worker status and it becomes much easier to mop up the real criminals.

We could do “mop up” already, but it doesn’t happen.

Why bother with machines when people are willing to do it even cheaper?

Because, as I just pointed out, all that “cheap” labor is hugely expensive.

If the machines kick in soon, they won’t get past guest worker status and will have to leave.

some will. The rest will just go on welfare.

Nobody is talking about amnesty

Except you just were. That’s what Rubio’s bill does. As Rubio himself said back in 2010 when he was swindling Florida’s GOP voters: First of all, earned path to citizenship is basically code for amnesty.

As for illegitimacy and gay marriage, those are common views among most Americans these days.

“The solution is to tighten up those loopholes, not police an impossible border.”

Yeah, get back to us when you’ve done that.

Simple, just put enforcement requirements in the guest worker plan and fund it with the increased tax revenue from the guest workers.

How about eliminating welfare payments to able bodied Americans that refuse employment? During the Great Depression tens of thousands of Americans moved across the country, at their own expense, just to get jobs picking fruit and vegetables in California’s central valley. All that you are advocating is that we eliminate the expectation of work from public assistance.

How about getting rid of welfare altogether? I have no idea how you got that I’m “advocating… that we eliminate the expectation of work from public assistance,” when I’d rather get rid of welfare itself. Since that may not be politically feasible, I’m fine with making sure it at least doesn’t go to non-citizens.

As for “policing an impossible border”, any nation that cannot secure its own borders ceases to exist as a nation – period.

Securing the border against terrorists is completely different from stopping immigrant workers from entering illegally. By making it so hard for the much larger population of workers to enter legally, you ensure that there are larger flows of illegal immigrants, making it easier for the terrorists to sneak in with them. Let the workers come in through legal channels and the terrorists will find it harder.

Paul,

According to Ann Coulter, For at least a century, there’s never been a period when a majority of immigrants weren’t Democrats.” I guess it’s always possible that the party promising free stuff won’t win the votes of the unskilled poor.

They don’t stay the “unskilled poor” for long, and they take less free stuff than Americans who have been here longer.

“Some time” goes by in a blink.

The Rubio plan required at least 15 years before you could vote, that’s not a “blink.”

The Rubio plan required at least 10 years just to become a permanent resident, without voting ability. The Dems will have a tough time claiming they should be citizens right away, just as they do now.

And yet the Democrats will agitate before the ink is dry, and continue to win the Hispanic vote by massive margins. When he’s signing the bill, Obama will claim the victory for himself, with the feckless GOP standing off to the sides with their d*cks in their hands. And whoa, 10 yrs? That’s like forever.

And you will be agitating against it the entire time. What’s the alternative, a bunch of illegals instead and the Dems winning the hispanic vote by massive margins each time by scaring them that their relatives will be deported by the big bad Republicans, then doing nothing about it when they get into office, keeping the slaves on the plantation as they have so far? It sounds like you’re fine with the already massive margins they’re getting. Of course, Obama will “claim the victory,” just as any other politician who voted for it will do the same: that’s what politicians do. It’s not going to pass without bipartisan support.

Take away the immigration issue and the hispanic vote likely equalizes.

There’s exactly zero evidence for that. Again, Coulter: Also surprising, a Pew Research Center poll of all Hispanics, immigrant and citizen alike, found that Hispanics take a dimmer view of capitalism than even people who describe themselves as “liberal Democrats.” While 47 percent of self-described “liberal Democrats” hold a negative view of capitalism, 55 percent of Hispanics do.

How long do you think that lasts when they’re legal and making money climbing up the economic ladder?

Bush got 40% in 2004, when immigration was the last thing on anyone’s minds.

In other words, he lost the Hispanic vote by a landslide. And this was the one time in history a GOP Presidential contender received even that much. And yet even the 40% marker is probably a myth: http://www.apsanet.org/content_9833.cfm

The point was that he did much better than the norm when the economy was doing well and immigration wasn’t an issue.

The solution is to tighten up those loopholes, not police an impossible border.

Yeah, I’m sure the Democrat party will sign up for that. “Heartless bastards want children to starve.” The GOP will lose the Hispanic vote by even greater margins.

If you think your cause is hopeless, I’m not sure why you even bother making a case. I don’t think keeping them illegal and deporting them, as you seem to think is best, won’t lose that vote by much greater margins.

There’s nothing “impossible” about the border. We just lack the will to do it.

Keep dreaming.

I don’t think hispanics largely being Catholic helped Obama,

Then you’re not aware of how liberal the Catholic church is in Latin America.

Perhaps a bit more on economic issues, like the current Pope, but I certainly wouldn’t call them “liberal.”

more likely immigration and other issues.

Other issues = big government

Perhaps, but I don’t see that as justification for keeping them illegal and not letting them legalize as guest workers. The longer they stay here, the less likely they are to cling to their outdated politics.

As for illegitimacy and gay marriage, those are common views among most Americans these days.

Wait, you told me they were socially conservative. Last I checked, social conservatism does not include pro-gay marriage and illegitimacy.

A majority of Catholics and Protestants now support legalizing gay marriage, only the Evangelicals lag behind. Illegitimacy may not be promoted by social conservatives, but with the national rate at 40%, it’s certainly not an uncommon practice these days.

Unlikely, but nobody is proposing granting full citizenship to them for some time.

Again with the “some time.”

We’ve been over the numbers. I see no reason to write “15 years” each time, as the plans vary but nobody is proposing immediate citizenship.

Crime is worse under the status quo of a large illegal population.

That’s part of the reason we have a deportation system.

Grant those who want to work guest worker status and it becomes much easier to mop up the real criminals.

We could do “mop up” already, but it doesn’t happen.

As I pointed out to Che earlier in this comment, it’s tougher to get to the real criminals when you’ve made so many otherwise hard-working immigrants illegal.

Why bother with machines when people are willing to do it even cheaper?

Because, as I just pointed out, all that “cheap” labor is hugely expensive.

And as I pointed out, it isn’t. Their use of govt services is negligible compared to the wages and taxes they’d put in.

If the machines kick in soon, they won’t get past guest worker status and will have to leave.

some will. The rest will just go on welfare.

Guest workers don’t get welfare.

Nobody is talking about amnesty

Except you just were. That’s what Rubio’s bill does. As Rubio himself said back in 2010 when he was swindling Florida’s GOP voters: First of all, earned path to citizenship is basically code for amnesty.

You’re playing with words now. Yes, any plan that provides a path to eventual citizenship is technically an amnesty, but people are usually talking about immediate citizenship when they use the word amnesty, as Reagan did in the ’80s. Nobody is offering a similar plan today, that makes them citizens immediately.

and they take less free stuff than Americans who have been here longer.

To the extent that’s true, it’s because all of the free stuff is not as easily accessible. That changes immediately once they become citizens, or just have kids.

The Rubio plan required at least 15 years before you could vote, that’s not a “blink.”

It’s not forever, either. In the meantime, the Democrats will champion the “2nd class citizens” and the GOP will look like they chumps they are if they pass amnesty.

And you will be agitating against it the entire time. What’s the alternative, a bunch of illegals instead and the Dems winning the hispanic vote by massive margins each time by scaring them that their relatives will be deported by the big bad Republicans, then doing nothing about it when they get into office, keeping the slaves on the plantation as they have so far? It sounds like you’re fine with the already massive margins they’re getting.

And you’re talking about adding millions of votes to their totals. Madness. You haven’t provided once iota of evidence the GOP has a prayer of winning a majority of their votes. it has never happened. Even John McCain, a longtime proponent of amnesty, got absolutely crushed with the Hispanic vote.

then doing nothing about it when they get into office, keeping the slaves on the plantation as they have so far?

Of course, Obama will “claim the victory,” just as any other politician who voted for it will do the same: that’s what politicians do. It’s not going to pass without bipartisan support.

So why would the GOP get the edge over the party offering amnesty and free shit? And I ask again: how much credit did the GOP get for the Reagan amnesty?

How long do you think that lasts when they’re legal and making money climbing up the economic ladder?

What ladder is it they are they climbing? That poll reflects all Hispanics, “immigrant and citizen alike” a group that is disproportionately poor in large part because the middle and upper class Hispanics usually stay in their own countries.

The point was that he did much better than the norm when the economy was doing well and immigration wasn’t an issue.

Naah, the point is he got absolutely crushed with the Hispanic vote, though did a bit better than the norm.

If you think your cause is hopeless, I’m not sure why you even bother making a case.

It’s not hopeless if we reform our immigration system, don’t pass amnesty, and protect the border.

I don’t think keeping them illegal and deporting them, as you seem to think is best, won’t lose that vote by much greater margins.

You’re a smart guy. You understand the concept of raw numbers. The GOP can lose the vote of a small class of voters and still win overall. It can’t lose the vote of a tidal wave of voters and still be a viable party.

dreaming.

You act like a security fencing is science fiction. Israel did it and reduced suicide bombings by almost 100%.

Perhaps a bit more on economic issues, like the current Pope, but I certainly wouldn’t call them “liberal.”

I’m Catholic. You must not be.

The longer they stay here, the less likely they are to cling to their outdated politics.

Where’s the evidence for that?

A majority of Catholics and Protestants now support legalizing gay marriage, only the Evangelicals lag behind. Illegitimacy may not be promoted by social conservatives, but with the national rate at 40%, it’s certainly not an uncommon practice these days.

Ok, so they aren’t social conservatives. Glad we cleared that up.

As I pointed out to Che earlier in this comment, it’s tougher to get to the real criminals when you’ve made so many otherwise hard-working immigrants illegal.

Umm, they made themselves illegal, not us. A general crackdown on illegal immigrants would thin the ranks, also making it easier to track down criminals.

And as I pointed out, it isn’t. Their use of govt services is negligible compared to the wages and taxes they’d put in.

That’s nonsense. Almost half of Americans are net recipients of government benefits. An unskilled, impoverished high school drop-out from Dysfunctiona is highly unlikely to be a net tax producer.

Guest workers don’t get welfare.

Do their kids? If yes, then you’ve already negated the benefit. Better unemployed American citizens or robots do those jobs.

You’re playing with words now. Yes, any plan that provides a path to eventual citizenship is technically an amnesty…

Then I’m not playing with words, you are. Amnesty, whether gradual or immediate, is still amnesty. The real benefit is getting to stay in the US without fear of being deported while millions of people trying to immigrate the right way from their host countries get screwed over.

“How about eliminating welfare payments to able bodied Americans that refuse employment?”

I fully support that great idea. Get back to us when you’ve done that. I would go even further and eliminate welfare payments, period.

If there is insufficient political will to do that, or at least to reduce the tremendous leakage in the system that results in people getting benefits who don’t qualify, why do you think there’s sufficient will to close the border?

“During the Great Depression tens of thousands of Americans moved across the country, at their own expense, just to get jobs picking fruit and vegetables in California’s central valley.”

Indeed, and where are they now? Their descendants have become productive citizens. If there had been a welfare system at that time you can bet they would be have taken advantage of every possible benefit available.

That same migration of desperately poor people moving at their own expense to get jobs picking fruit and vegetables exists today. The main difference is they travel North, not West, and cross some imaginary line in the desert to get to those jobs.

The main difference is they travel North, not West, and cross some imaginary line in the desert to get to those jobs.

Interesting. Do you ever ask yourself why they choose to go north, instead of south across “some imaginary line” in the jungle?

The people that I referred to were Americans with every legal right to migrate within their own nation boundaries. They crossed no “imaginary lines” and willingly did jobs that advocates of mass illegal immigration insist Americans would never do.

In fact, had they wanted to find work by migrating south across “some imaginary line” in the desert they would have run headlong into some of the most stringent and restrictive immigration laws in the world. Funny, how those currently demanding open and unrestricted entry into the U.S. come from some of the most unwelcoming (in terms of immigration) countries in the world.

“Interesting. Do you ever ask yourself why they choose to go north, instead of south across “some imaginary line” in the jungle?”

There is nothing to ask. The US is a land of opportunity, unlike where they live now, and unlike anything south across an imaginary line in the jungle. If they weren’t poor and uneducated and desperate, they would stay where they are. They want to improve their lives, and in the US is where they can do it. There’s nothing mysterious about it.

It’s the same desperation that drives Cubans to risk being eaten by sharks to reach Florida.

“The people that I referred to were Americans with every legal right to migrate within their own nation boundaries. They crossed no “imaginary lines” and willingly did jobs that advocates of mass illegal immigration insist Americans would never do.”

I guess that legal right was of little comfort to them. They weren’t welcome, in some cases were met with violence, and were treated generally worse than Mexican immigrants are now. So much for the value of citizenship.

I can’t recall anyone claiming that Americans would *never* do those jobs, because obviously the did them during the Depression, as you so aptly pointed out. The claim is that Americans *don’t* do those jobs, as evidenced by the fact that they aren’t currently doing them. They have every opportunity and many advantages over illegals. Maybe you and I are paying for a safety net of some kind that prevents desperation.

“In fact, had they wanted to find work by migrating south across “some imaginary line” in the desert they would have run headlong into some of the most stringent and restrictive immigration laws in the world.”

It doesn’t matter. The main deterrent is lack of opportunity to the south.

“Funny, how those currently demanding open and unrestricted entry into the U.S. come from some of the most unwelcoming (in terms of immigration) countries in the world.”

What’s funny is that anyone thinks those restrictions are even necessary, as those unwelcoming countries have little appeal. I wonder if North Korea has a problem like that?

That link purports to show how much they use welfare, but says nothing about whether they stay poor for long, which is what we were talking about. Not sure why you posted a completely unrelated link.

and they take less free stuff than Americans who have been here longer.

To the extent that’s true, it’s because all of the free stuff is not as easily accessible. That changes immediately once they become citizens, or just have kids.

Then make the free stuff less easily accessible, by not letting them have it just because they have kids or once they naturalize, ie you’d have to be born here to qualify. This is an easy request to make as part of any immigration reform plan.

The Rubio plan required at least 15 years before you could vote, that’s not a “blink.”

It’s not forever, either. In the meantime, the Democrats will champion the “2nd class citizens” and the GOP will look like they chumps they are if they pass amnesty.

Nobody said it was forever. I think the “second-class citizen” case will be difficult to make when they’re the ones who’ll claim credit for passing the bill, as you note. 😉 I don’t think the new citizens’ votes will quite be so guaranteed as you think for either party.

And you’re talking about adding millions of votes to their totals. Madness. You haven’t provided once iota of evidence the GOP has a prayer of winning a majority of their votes. it has never happened. Even John McCain, a longtime proponent of amnesty, got absolutely crushed with the Hispanic vote.

Well, to begin with and as I noted earlier, half of eligible hispanic voters don’t even vote, much lower than the third of eligible white and black voters who don’t vote. Perhaps the GOP won’t win a majority of their votes, but I did provide evidence that their tally could be higher, as shown by Bush’s higher results, which, even if your skeptical link is true, were higher than any GOPer before or since. McCain completely walked back his support for immigration reform in order to win the GOP primary, so that’s hardly evidence that supporting immigration reform doesn’t help.

then doing nothing about it when they get into office, keeping the slaves on the plantation as they have so far?

You misunderstand. I meant that the Democrats are perfectly happy to keep talking about immigration reform and then do nothing about it, which is why Telemundo hit Obama hard on this issue before the last election. It helps them to keep hispanics on the plantation and scared. I say, let them out, even if we don’t know exactly where they will go.

Of course, Obama will “claim the victory,” just as any other politician who voted for it will do the same: that’s what politicians do. It’s not going to pass without bipartisan support.

So why would the GOP get the edge over the party offering amnesty and free shit? And I ask again: how much credit did the GOP get for the Reagan amnesty?

According to you, both parties are offering “amnesty.” 😉 As for Reagan’s immigration reform, it was passed by a Republican senate and a Democratic house, not sure why you think only the GOP would get credit.

How long do you think that lasts when they’re legal and making money climbing up the economic ladder?

What ladder is it they are they climbing? That poll reflects all Hispanics, “immigrant and citizen alike” a group that is disproportionately poor in large part because the middle and upper class Hispanics usually stay in their own countries.

The answer is in your own quote, the economic ladder. Do you really doubt that hispanics would start climbing the economic ladder in this country once they are legal? The immigrants who came here have always been poor, and today are almost always the richest of their respective communities around the world and often within the US itself.

The point was that he did much better than the norm when the economy was doing well and immigration wasn’t an issue.

Naah, the point is he got absolutely crushed with the Hispanic vote, though did a bit better than the norm.

I wouldn’t call it “crushed,” but it appears we agree about my main point: he did better than the norm when immigration wasn’t an issue.

If you think your cause is hopeless, I’m not sure why you even bother making a case.

It’s not hopeless if we reform our immigration system, don’t pass amnesty, and protect the border.

And this won’t cause the GOP to “lose the Hispanic vote by even greater margins?” As I said, you keep shooting down any alternatives as hopeless, but your proposed path is the worst even by your chosen metric of the hispanic vote.

I don’t think keeping them illegal and deporting them, as you seem to think is best, won’t lose that vote by much greater margins.

You’re a smart guy. You understand the concept of raw numbers. The GOP can lose the vote of a small class of voters and still win overall. It can’t lose the vote of a tidal wave of voters and still be a viable party.

The GOP is already losing elections overall without that vote and there is no “tidal wave.” If the GOP gets on board with immigration reform, I see no reason to think those votes are a forgone conclusion.

dreaming.

You act like a security fencing is science fiction. Israel did it and reduced suicide bombings by almost 100%.

As I told you before, you really think our 2k-mile long southern border, the most frequently crossed international border in the world, is in any way analogous to tiny Israel?

Perhaps a bit more on economic issues, like the current Pope, but I certainly wouldn’t call them “liberal.”

I’m Catholic. You must not be.

I certainly am not.

The longer they stay here, the less likely they are to cling to their outdated politics.

Where’s the evidence for that?

It’s what pretty much every other immigrant group has done. When the Irish first came here, they were looked down on, as you do on the hispanics today, taking up the labor nobody else wanted or which even black slaves were considered too valuable for:

“On the Mississippi River before the Civil war deckhands were slaves. Usually Irish employees had the much more dangerous job of stoking the furnace. That way, if a boiler exploded, the easily replaceable wage earners were the ones killed. The more valuable slaves were not in as much danger.”

Today, Irish-Americans are much richer than the Irish back home and do better than the median American. For a long time they voted Democrat, today they split their vote 50-50.

A majority of Catholics and Protestants now support legalizing gay marriage, only the Evangelicals lag behind. Illegitimacy may not be promoted by social conservatives, but with the national rate at 40%, it’s certainly not an uncommon practice these days.

Ok, so they aren’t social conservatives. Glad we cleared that up.

My point was that gay marriage and illegitimacy aren’t bellwether “social conservative” issues anymore, which is why many religious groups have majorities that support legalizing gay marriage, for example. But the hispanics are certainly more religious and socially conservative than most Americans.

As I pointed out to Che earlier in this comment, it’s tougher to get to the real criminals when you’ve made so many otherwise hard-working immigrants illegal.

Umm, they made themselves illegal, not us. A general crackdown on illegal immigrants would thin the ranks, also making it easier to track down criminals.

All they did is cross the border to work, which would have been perfectly fine decades ago, so no, it is current govts that have made them illegal. With millions of illegals these days, good luck thinning those ranks or tracking anyone. Let the vast majority who want to work legalize as guest workers and you isolate the real criminals.

And as I pointed out, it isn’t. Their use of govt services is negligible compared to the wages and taxes they’d put in.

That’s nonsense. Almost half of Americans are net recipients of government benefits. An unskilled, impoverished high school drop-out from Dysfunctiona is highly unlikely to be a net tax producer.

That’s because Americans qualify for govt handouts, guest workers wouldn’t. Also, the half of Americans who are net recipients are usually putting a lot more into the economy through their wages. Guest workers would have to be net tax producers, as they wouldn’t qualify for benefits, and once they became citizens, they likely wouldn’t get much.

Guest workers don’t get welfare.

Do their kids? If yes, then you’ve already negated the benefit. Better unemployed American citizens or robots do those jobs.

Since when do kids receive welfare, particularly ones who aren’t born here? Your “unemployed American citizens” don’t want to do those jobs, that’s a big part of the reason they’re here.

You’re playing with words now. Yes, any plan that provides a path to eventual citizenship is technically an amnesty…

Then I’m not playing with words, you are. Amnesty, whether gradual or immediate, is still amnesty. The real benefit is getting to stay in the US without fear of being deported while millions of people trying to immigrate the right way from their host countries get screwed over.

Actually, I take that back. If you want to get really technical, I just looked it up and the ’86 Reagan plan was not an amnesty: it required a fine, back taxes, and an admission of guilt. So no, nobody is talking about an amnesty, either back then or now.

The whole point of immigration reform is to figure out how to stop immigrants from getting “screwed over.” You vaguely mention changing legal immigration, but provide no concrete solution, while harping on about stamping out illegals. That’s hardly a solution.

That link purports to show how much they use welfare, but says nothing about whether they stay poor for long, which is what we were talking about. Not sure why you posted a completely unrelated link. WTF? How many middle and upper class folks are on genral assistance? You’re just being obtuse here. Hispanics in the US are disproportionately poor. Illegals usually stay poor and their kids do a little bit better and then subsequent generations stall out. I shouldn’t really have to tell you that.Then make the free stuff less easily accessible, by not letting them have it just because they have kids or once they naturalize, ie you’d have to be born here to qualify. This is an easy request to make as part of any immigration reform plan. Uh huh, so easy. Democrats would surely line up to give up their advantage in handing out free stuff. And I’m sure the Supreme Court would be a-ok with that blatant violation of the equal protection clause in the Constitution.Nobody said it was forever. I think the “second-class citizen” case will be difficult to make when they’re the ones who’ll claim credit for passing the bill, as you note. I don’t think the new citizens’ votes will quite be so guaranteed as you think for either party. Right. Just like in ’88. You keep supplying wishful thinking in lieu of any actual evidence.which, even if your skeptical link is true, were higher than any GOPer before or since. Right. So a one time fluke in which the GOP candidate lost the Hispanic vote in a landslide makes an excellent bet for winning the majority vote in the future. Gotcha.According to you, both parties are offering “amnesty.” Correct. And one of them is offering amnesty + all kinds of free shit redistributed from the vaults of evil, selfish rich people. I’m missing how the GOP wins that contest(again, for the first time in history) offering only amnesty.As for Reagan’s immigration reform, it was passed by a Republican senate and a Democratic house, not sure why you think only the GOP would get credit.

Really? You’re not sure? HOW MUCH CREDIT DID THE GOP GET IN THE FOLLOWING ELECTION IN ‘88 @ YRS AFTER AMNESTY?The answer is in your own quote, the economic ladder. Do you really doubt that hispanics would start climbing the economic ladder in this country once they are legal? I don’t know , lets check the status of current status of Hispanics as a group who have been here for generations. Check school test scores, poverty, crime rates and then perhaps we’ll have an idea.

The immigrants who came here have always been poor, and today are almost always the richest of their respective communities around the world and often within the US itself. That’s a nice story, but it isn’t true. How are Native Americans doings? Blacks? Puerto Ricans have been American citizens for over a hundred yrs. How are they doing as a group?I wouldn’t call it “crushed,” Well, then you’re playing with words. Only gaining, at most, 40% of a vote is considered to be losing by a landslide in an election. but it appears we agree about my main point: he did better than the norm when immigration wasn’t an issue. He managed to do a bit better than normal. Whoopee. If the GOP manages to get 40% of the around 30 million new citizens(counting family reunification), given current voting rates, the Democrats will never lose another election.And this won’t cause the GOP to “lose the Hispanic vote by even greater margins?” As I said, you keep shooting down any alternatives as hopeless, but your proposed path is the worst even by your chosen metric of the hispanic vote. The GOP will never outpander the Democrats. What they could do is appeal to Hispanics citizens as Americans and point out how illegal immigration crushes the wages at the bottom end where a disproportionate number of Hispanics find themselves. It’s a distinction from the “me too but less free shit” plan you think is going to sell like hotcakes in spite of all the evidence to the contrary.The GOP is already losing elections overall without that vote and there is no “tidal wave.” If the GOP gets on board with immigration reform, I see no reason to think those votes are a forgone conclusion. Except you haven’t provided a single data point to show how this magic is going to happen.As I told you before, you really think our 2k-mile long southern border, the most frequently crossed international border in the world, is in any way analogous to tiny Israel? Uh, yeah, but on a much bigger scale. It’s doable and works like a charm in places where it’s actually been tried like San Diego.I certainly am not. That’s pretty obvious if you seriously dispute the church’s overwhelmingly liberal bent.It’s what pretty much every other immigrant group has done. When the Irish first came here, they were looked down on, Right. And then we had a 40 yr immigration moratorium that allowed time for assimilation. Your comparison to immigration of the 19th century is just apples and oranges. We had a wide open frontier, no Cultural Marxism, no welfare state, no mass media. If you couldn’t make it you went home, as about a third of them do today.as you do on the hispanics today, That’s bullshit. I’m married to a Hispanic and have 2 kids I adopted from Colombia. I’m just giving you the facts, politically incorrect as they may be, and you are making it personal. Oh well, at least you didn’t call me a racist yet.Today, Irish-Americans are much richer than the Irish back home and do better than the median American. For a long time they voted Democrat, today they split their vote 50-50. Yeah, good thing the immigration moratorium gave them time to assimilate, and they didn’t have a welfare state full of community organizers to ruin them.My point was that gay marriage and illegitimacy aren’t bellwether “social conservative” issues anymore, Which is complete nonsense.But the hispanics are certainly more religious and socially conservative than most Americans. It’s nice when you don’t have to define your terms, I guess. Here’s 2 polls demonstrating how latinos are anti-gun rights and pro-abortion. But I guess those won’t count either since those views are also commonplace in America today, so that somehow will also equate to “socially conservative.”http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/11/latinos-endorse-legal-abortion/http://nbclatino.com/2013/03/12/poll-regardless-of-political-party-latino-voters-support-gun-control-laws/All they did is cross the border to work, which would have been perfectly fine decades ago, so no, it is current govts that have made them illegal. Umm, so they broke the law.With millions of illegals these days, good luck thinning those ranks or tracking anyone. Google “Operation Wetback.”

Let the vast majority who want to work legalize as guest workers and you isolate the real criminals. Oh, they’ll be “isolated.” How does that work? Will they be standing out on street corners with signs?That’s because Americans qualify for govt handouts, guest workers wouldn’t. Really? So no medical care for their families or welfare or education for their kids?Also, the half of Americans who are net recipients are usually putting a lot more into the economy through their wages. That’s awesome considering we have 14 million Americans out of work who could be “putting a lot more into their economy through their wages too.” According to Heritage, the cost of amnesty to the taxpayers would be about $6.3 trillion.Guest workers would have to be net tax producers, as they wouldn’t qualify for benefits, and once they became citizens, they likely wouldn’t get much. “Wouldn’t get much.” That’s contrary to all current evidence among that community.Since when do kids receive welfare, particularly ones who aren’t born here? Are you serious? That’s primarily how welfare is offered. Ever hear of WIC? Medicaid? You don’t remember AFCD? Or SCHIP? There are countless federal, state, and local programs across the country offering welfare to kids. Your “unemployed American citizens” don’t want to do those jobs, that’s a big part of the reason they’re here. Most of those jobs were once done by Americans. They don’t do those jobs now because illegals drove the wages down and also because you often need to know Spanish to get hired. Also, free stuff is offered. Let’s do the libertarian thing and get rid of the free stuff.Actually, I take that back. If you want to get really technical, I just looked it up and the ’86 Reagan plan was not an amnesty: it required a fine, back taxes, and an admission of guilt. So no, nobody is talking about an amnesty, either back then or now. That’s just bizarre considering everyone, including Reagan called it amnesty. You are the only person on the planet to say otherwise. The punishment for crossing the border illegally was supposed to include deportation. They changed it to a slap on the wrist + a big reward for breaking the law. You’re really playing with words now.The whole point of immigration reform is to figure out how to stop immigrants from getting “screwed over.” That may be your point, and La Raza’s point, but most Americans think the whole point of immigration reform is to figure out how to stop American citizens from getting “screwed over.”

That’s true, but it’s not the whole story because some immigrant groups are doing better than others. If it were simply the welfare state we should see a rough parity across all groups. Nature and nurture are playing a role here as well.

We could revamp our immigration laws to skim the cream of the crop across the globe and then we would have a thriving immigrant community that could add value right away.

“That’s true, but it’s not the whole story because some immigrant groups are doing better than others. If it were simply the welfare state we should see a rough parity across all groups. Nature and nurture are playing a role here as well.”

If you’re not paying for the welfare state, why would you care if some immigrant groups do better than others? Keep in mind that you are talking about minor statistical differences between groups, that may not be useful when discussing individuals.

I care because we are indeed paying for a welfare state certain immigrant groups vote to expand even further. They vote in complete Marxist turds like Raul Grijalva here in Az, and Charlie Gonzalez in Tx, for example.

I also don’t want traditional American culture overwhelmed by a dysfunctional culture. I’m staying here in Medellin in the nice area called El Poblado and I ventured out into other parts of town today. The dysfunction was almost overwhelming. If Colombia was the US neighbor directly south it unfortunately wouldn’t be the productive denizens of El Poblado sneaking across the border.

My main point though was to refute this persistent myth that because the Irish and some other groups succeeded that must mean all groups will work out the same.

“I care because we are indeed paying for a welfare state certain immigrant groups vote to expand even further. They vote in complete Marxist turds like Raul Grijalva here in Az, and Charlie Gonzalez in Tx, for example.”

I could have been clearer.

Me: “Those groups, as well as Hispanics are victims of the welfare state. You suggested the solution yourself:

“Let’s do the libertarian thing and get rid of the free stuff.“

You: “That’s true, but it’s not the whole story because some immigrant groups are doing better than others. If it were simply the welfare state we should see a rough parity across all groups. Nature and nurture are playing a role here as well.”

Me: “If you’re not paying for the welfare state – [because we do the libertarian thing and get rid of it] – why would you care if some immigrant groups do better than others? Keep in mind that you are talking about minor statistical differences between groups, that may not be useful when discussing individuals.”

You: “I care because we are indeed paying for a welfare state certain immigrant groups vote to expand even further.”

You: “My main point though was to refute this persistent myth that because the Irish and some other groups succeeded that must mean all groups will work out the same.”

Paul, without the welfare state, and THAT is the main difference between immigrant groups then and now, many or most of the individual members of those previous immigrant groups succeeded. There’s no reason to believe the same market forces at work then wouldn’t work now for recent immigrants if there were no welfare state. Any statistical differences between groups wouldn’t matter to individuals who succeeded.

Those you consider undesirables would be weeded out by natural processes.

Ok, I think there’s more to it than that given that the self-selection mechanism can work differently in the modern age, but I do agree the immigrant situation would be better without a welfare state. Until it’s gone, and we have a way to ensure it won’t be voted back in again, we should crack down on all illegal immigration and reform our current legal immigration system. Our current trajectory is turning us into another Venezuela where the middle class and business community are forced into a rear guard battle against the government supported overwhelmingly by the poor. This “land of opportunity” is being eroded on a national level the same way California was, the former land of opportunity within the land of opportunity.

“Until it’s gone, and we have a way to ensure it won’t be voted back in again, we should crack down on all illegal immigration and reform our current legal immigration system.”

I don’t believe there is the political will to do any of those things. If there are, as advertised, 20 million or whatever number of illegals in the country, there is no way in hell meaningful numbers of them will be deported without the US becoming such an oppressive police state that none of us would want to live here.

Likewise, to effectively close the border would require a de-militarized zone like that between the 2 Koreas in which you actually shoot and kill anyone trying to move from one side to another. That’s not acceptable either.

You want to control the symptoms, I would rather attack the primary cause. Neither is likely to happen.

I think most of us commenting here believe there will be a collapse. The only disagreements seem to be about what form it will take, how bad it will be, and what recovery will look like.

“I don’t see immigration as the problem. It is massively bloated and ever growing government, disastrous fiscal and monetary policy, and income redistribution that are moving us ever closer to the cliff.

if immigrants dislike the GOP because of their stance on immigration (as many do) isn’t changing that stance a way to win such votes?

also:

you speak of politics like an end goal.

a just society with liberty and wealth is the end goal.

immigration is consistent with those ends.

i think one of the major problems with many of the political debates today is that they have become zero sum political chess matches. they have forgotten that there is a country attached to these political arguments.

The GOP is not anti-immigrant, that’s just leftist/libertarian bullshit.

The GOP has supported, and continues to support, the most generous LEGAL immigration system in the entire world.

This is about the rule-of-law. As you can see with Obama’s behavior, contempt for our immigration laws has led to contempt for the law generally. I would suggest that that is not a zero sum proposition.

Depends on how you define “generous” when applied to legal immigration.

A person with family ties in the US can immigrate, and that’s generous.

A person who can make contributions to the country basically cannot: we have one of the most restrictive immigration policies in the world. There are exceptions for refugees, famous actors and sportspeople, and technologists in servitude to a few well-connected, wealthy firms. But, assume that you are a talented teacher, or an expert firefighter, or anyone capable of getting a job offer for, say, $80k+ (so, a higher-end taxpayer), but without family ties or a “connected” tech/arts/sports employer. How do you immigrate legally? (Answer: you can’t.)

A person with family ties in the US can immigrate, and that’s generous.

Yeah, family reunification needs to be wiped out or changed dramatically. I don’t think even the most die-hard libertarian sees much value in bringing in a 67 yr old impoverished, non-English speaking immigrant from a culture of dysfunction.

But, assume that you are a talented teacher, or an expert firefighter, or anyone capable of getting a job offer for, say, $80k+ (so, a higher-end taxpayer), but without family ties or a “connected” tech/arts/sports employer. How do you immigrate legally? (Answer: you can’t.)

You actually can, or at least attempt it but the odds are probably against. I would definitely change that to make it easier.

“According to the U.S. Census Bureau’s 2011 American Community Survey (ACS), immigrants accounted for 16 percent of the 58.8 million college-educated persons. However, their numbers were much higher among workers in certain occupations: Immigrants represent nearly 28 percent of physicians, more than 31 percent of computer programmers, and over 47 percent of medical scientists.” — Migration Policy.org

“But, assume that you are a talented teacher, or an expert firefighter, or anyone capable of getting a job offer for, say, $80k+ (so, a higher-end taxpayer), but without family ties or a “connected” tech/arts/sports employer. How do you immigrate legally? (Answer: you can’t.)”

I notice both teachers and firefighters have strong unions. Do you suppose that’s a factor?

No, it’s not about specific unions. It works the other way: everyone is excluded unless they are “connected”.

You could be a retail or small business manager (some of them earn a lot and have considerable skills), an economist, a management consultant, an accountant, etc. You’re not coming to the US to stay – not legally – unless you are a relative (including by marriage).

I merely meant to convey that someone who has an “ordinary” occupation – even if they are exemplary at it, even if they are quite highly-paid – cannot get a visa. In theory, it’s possible, in the sense that there is a visa category they can apply for. In practice, it’s impossible.

I know some great people, who would be assets to our country, who for various reasons would like to live here, but have more chance of winning the lottery than getting a visa. And, because being illegal here is miserable, and they do just fine in their countries of origin, we lose them altogether – and there is ZERO support for fixing this problem, because it’s perceived as “soft on immigration”.

As I noted before there are certain fields (Che correctly notes that I overlooked medical fields) where, if you enter what amounts to a period of servitude to certain large, lawyered-up and well-connected employers, your odds rise to merely “poor”. A high percentage of employees in those fields are foreign-born today because the odds were better in the past.

The way to make immigration legal for “desirables” is not to list occuptions, but simply to set a tax threshold: if you pay at least $X in income tax ($15k, say) for at least Y years (5, say), you’re in. Otherwise, your visa expires.

– and there is ZERO support for fixing this problem, because it’s perceived as “soft on immigration”.

But that’s not true. The GOP passed the STEM Act last yr and Harry Reid completely ignored it when it hit his desk because immigrants who actually have something to offer are not sure bets as Democrat voters.

I don’t know if you’re an immigrant, but I am. And immigrants tend to know each other. So, yes, I know people.

Go ahead. Go talk to an immigration attorney. Tell them you are a teacher, or a firefighter, or a retail store manager. Tell them you’re from Canada (accounts, sort of, for the accent). Ask them how to migrate, legally, to the United States.

They’ll tell you to marry a US citizen, and if you say you can’t, they’ll tell you to forget it.

You’re right, there have been proposals. They go nowhere. I mis-characterized that as “zero support”. I do stick by my point, that limiting it to STEM, or to PhDs, is foolishness. Let the market decide: if they can earn enough to pay some amount of income tax, the country values them. But, that’s a separate point.

The last time there was a material change in the immigration law, IIRC, was the initiation of a lottery for applicants from certain countries, back in the late 1980s.

“I don’t know if you’re an immigrant, but I am … Go talk to an immigration attorney. Tell them you are a teacher, or a firefighter, or a retail store manager … Ask them how to migrate, legally, to the United States. They’ll tell you to marry a US citizen, and if you say you can’t, they’ll tell you to forget it.”

Why not talk to an immigration attorney in Mexico, Brazil, China, Switzerland, India, Japan, blah, blah, blah. See how that works out.

The U.S. is under no special obligation to accept anyone as an immigrant. The fact that we, under societal consensus, accept so many immigrants LEGALLY (more than all of the rest of the countries of the world COMBINED) is an indication of our generosity toward immigrants and our belief that immigration contributes to our society. WE OWE YOU NOTHING.

It’s irrelevant. No one cares how easy or hard it is to enter any of those countries. The discussion is about US immigration. Calling US policy easier or more generous than others is meaningless. It’s not a contest.

How about a hint? I don’t see anything that discusses relative ease of entry to various countries, unless you mean your comment about US policy being the most generous in the world, which I already pointed out is irrelevant.

“But that’s not true. The GOP passed the STEM Act last yr and Harry Reid completely ignored it when it hit his desk because immigrants who actually have something to offer are not sure bets as Democrat voters.”

I suppose he meant there isn’t *sufficient* support for fixing the problem.

if immigrants dislike the GOP because of their stance on immigration (as many do) isn’t changing that stance a way to win such votes?

No, because amnesty isn’t the only issue on the table, or even the most important issue to them. According to Heather MacDonald, “A March 2011 poll by Moore Information found that Republican economic policies were a stronger turn-off for Hispanic voters in California than Republican positions on illegal immigration. Twenty-nine percent of Hispanic voters were suspicious of the Republican party on class-warfare grounds — “it favors only the rich”; “Republicans are selfish and out for themselves”; “Republicans don’t represent the average person”– compared with 7 percent who objected to Republican immigration stances.

I spoke last year with John Echeveste, founder of the oldest Latino marketing firm in southern California, about Hispanic politics. “What Republicans mean by ‘family values’ and what Hispanics mean are two completely different things,” he said. “We are a very compassionate people, we care about other people and understand that government has a role to play in helping people.”

Also, I already pointed out how Reagan’s amnesty of ’86 netted his successor Bush Sr a whopping 30% of the vote 2 yrs later. The GOP is never going to out-pander the Democrats, it would be better to appeal to Hispanics as plain old Americans. Point out how unskilled illegal immigration drives down wages on the bottom rungs, where a large proportion of Hispanics are working.

a just society with liberty and wealth is the end goal. immigration is consistent with those ends.

Did the 9/11 highjackers contribute to that liberty end goal? How about the Tsarnevs? Major Hassan? You like the TSA screenings? As for wealth, Heritage estimated the costs of Rubio’s amnesty at around $6.3 trillion. You’ve pointed out a few times how Australia’s wealth comes largely from having a small population in a land filled with natural resources. Wouldn’t mass, largely unskilled immigration like the US has change that equation?

a shift to a more libertarian view on schools (vouchers, more specialization) would seem to be a big boon here as it would actually work (as opposed to the tired dem ideas) and allow for more specialization, including programs tailored for immigrants.

on the economy, the republicans tend to do better than dems.

so, it would seem that there could be a fair bit to attract such voters.

i suspect that many latinos are just flat out turned off by the gop because they support ins raids and all manner of other programs that target latinos.

you tun off the whole group by targeting some of them.

i’m honestly not sure what to make of the rest of your comment.

are you claiming 9/11 was an immigration issue? and what does the TSA have to do with it?

i think the austrailain analogy is inapt.

the us economy is not driven by resource wealth, but by production and innovation which benefit from immigration, even if just through having a larger labor force (and lower costs) and a bigger consumer base.

the us THRIVED for over a century of open immigration.

we’ve had the guest worker discussion many times before.

you just need to create a program whereby people can come, work, start businesses, buy homes etc but have to spend X number of years doing so (and paying taxes) before they are even eligible for any for of welfare. (apart from perhaps schooling, but that is easily covered by diverting FICA etc).

there is no reason an influx of workers should not be a major benefit, not a cost.

i find it puzzling that so many of the same folks that fear the cheap labor of asia and see it as a threat to us manufacturing suddenly see cheap labor as a huge problem if we have it here.

it seems inconsistent.

we can make stuff here, or we can import it from somewhere with cheap labor.

in the former case, the workers spend their money here in the us and pay taxes here and drive our economy, in the latter, they do not.

the notion that by keeping out such labor, us manufacturing jobs can be saved is an illusion.

this pew research seem to imply that education and jobs and the economy are top latino issues.

Yep. Did you notice how immigratin is far down the list? Hispanics are disproportionately represented in the lower wage scale jobs, with incomes about 35 percent lower than the national average. The GOP could distinguish itself there by pointing out how unskilled immigration drives down their wages ever further.

a shift to a more libertarian view on schools (vouchers, more specialization) would seem to be a big boon here as it would actually work (as opposed to the tired dem ideas) and allow for more specialization, including programs tailored for immigrants.

on the economy, the republicans tend to do better than dems. so, it would seem that there could be a fair bit to attract such voters.

Like the roaring ’80’s? Once again: see Reagan amnesty.

i suspect that many latinos are just flat out turned off by the gop because they support ins raids and all manner of other programs that target latinos. you tun off the whole group by targeting some of them.

They’re first turned off by GOP economic policies, but yeah, law and order is always going to be a loser among certain groups of people, I guess. Raids don’t “target latinos.” They target illegal immigrants, a huge % of whom happen to be latinos, not even following a guest worker program. We should have a more open immigration like Mexico has..oh wait..

are you claiming 9/11 was an immigration issue?

Of course it was. At least in part. All of the 9/11 highjackers were immigrants from insanely hostile countries towards the West. Most of the terrorism on US soil for the past several decades has come from immigrants from countries of that nature.

and what does the TSA have to do with it?

TSA screening, like NSA monitoring, was beefed up as a response to terrorism on US soil that could have been avoided with sensible immigration policies.

the us THRIVED for over a century of open immigration.

Different time. The US was largely open frontier during that period. There were much more unskilled labor jobs available. There wasn’t any Cultural Marxism, and no welfare state. If you couldn’t make it, you either choked out or went home, as about a third of them did. Now, those who can’t make it largely go on public assistance.

you just need to create a program whereby people can come, work, start businesses, buy homes etc but have to spend X number of years doing so (and paying taxes) before they are even eligible for any for of welfare. (apart from perhaps schooling, but that is easily covered by diverting FICA etc).

I presume you’re talking about regularizing the 11-20 million already here. But what about their kids? Who is going to let them go hungry or not have a roof over their head? Medical care? You think the Democrats are just going to sit still while all these potential voters are on the sidelines? And are we going to round up the ones who don’t cut it?

There are approx 4 million people applying for entrance into the US at any given moment. They are following the rules and you are advocating they be penalized for doing it the right way. They will all get stuck in the back of the line while all this bureaucracy is being processed. Meanwhile, millions of unskilled illegals from dysfunctional cultures will start their migration to the US in anticipation of the next amnesty.

i find it puzzling that so many of the same folks that fear the cheap labor of asia and see it as a threat to us manufacturing suddenly see cheap labor as a huge problem if we have it here.

We have plenty of cheap labor sitting idle. Why import more of it and all the external costs that comes with it? If I import an orange from Mexico, I’m not stuck paying for that orange’s kids. That orange doesn’t jump ahead of me in line for a job because it’s an Orange American entitled to affirmative action. The orange isn’t likely to join a gang or spray graffiti all over the public square. So…apples and oranges.

in the former case, the workers spend their money here in the us and pay taxes here and drive our economy, in the latter, they do not.

More like “receive taxes.” Already, about half of all Americans don’t pay net income taxes. Where do you suppose most high school drop outs from the Dominican Republican end up on the wage scale? Also, a large chunk of that money made here ends up heading south in the form of remittances.

“Did the 9/11 highjackers contribute to that liberty end goal? How about the Tsarnevs? Major Hassan? You like the TSA screenings?”

You’re better than that, my friend, You’ve picked out 23 people, none of whom entered the US illegally or who are/were hispanics. and one of whom was a natural born US citizen, as support for stricter border controls. You say you have no problem with legal immigrants, and all but Hasan entered the US legally. You would have waved them through.

The TSA screenings are bullshit, and didn’t stop the Tsarnovs, Hasan, Richard Reid, or that underware bomber idiot. And had they been in place, they wouldn’t have stopped the 9/11 hijackers.

“… the growth in the non-white vote has been offset by a deterioration in Democrats’ standing among whites.

Any one of these observations, standing alone, would stand as reasonable evidence that the Democrats have been shedding white voters over time. Combined, they’re pretty compelling. The Democrats are reaping the benefits of our increased diversity. But they’re paying it back with an increasingly poor showing among whites. — The Democrats’ Problem With White Voters

I certainly wouldn’t argue that this is good for the country, but it does explain why the Democrats and their fluff-girls in the MSM are increasingly shrill in their denunciations of Republicans as “racists”.

The problem is currently there is no one who is both libertarian on social and economic issues. This would mean shrinking licensing for jobs and regulations, but also same sex marriage abortions, drug legalization etc. The left is for social libertarianism, and the right for economic libertarianism. It is not clear that given the states of the two parties that anyone who was libertarian in both sides could win either parties nomination.

Ron Paul is actually pro life. Libertarianism isn’t about anything goes the way the pothead libertarians think it is. It is about personal rights and responsibilities. If you kill an unborn child you are grossly violating its civil rights.

Libertarianism does not take a philosophical position on right-to-life vs right-to-choose. It DOES take a philosophical position on whether the state should get involved.

Libertarianism has, at its heart, the idea that when material numbers of reasonable people can disagree in good conscience, the state has no place getting involved. This is such an issue: there is no disputing that there are large numbers of people on either side.

In practical terms, this is effectively a religious issue: people have deeply-help philosophies that are irreconcileable. We already know the best answer to state involvement in religious differences: don’t.

Morg, with all due respect, when we are talking about a right that is the most important and the most basic, the right to live, then I think the question when does life begin needs to be given a lot of leeway. The question should not be prove that viable life exist, or is this a person, or do they have a soul. The question should be, prove that it is not a viable life, or this is not a person, or that they do not have a soul.

It seems to me that the right to life is so important that we should be reasonably certain that life does not exist before we can say that abortion does not harm the rights of the unborn. So prove that it does not exist as life is the question, not prove that it exists.

“It seems to me that the right to life is so important that we should be reasonably certain that life does not exist before we can say that abortion does not harm the rights of the unborn. So prove that it does not exist as life is the question, not prove that it exists.”

The existence of life can’t be a determinant, as there is no time when life does NOT exist. The sperm is alive, the egg is alive, the fertilized egg is alive, the growing embryo is alive. There is a continuous thread of life back to to the first living thing. The fertilized egg

I would say libertarianism lets a person decide on these issues, not the state deciding for them. After all abortions existed in the back alleys before Roe v Wade, and even if the US were to outlaw them, folks could go north of the border or to Europe to get them. If you believe people should be able to make decisions, then let them decide. (Just like with protections assisted suicide for terminal patients should be allowed)

Yes , the right to life, liberty, and property starting with self ownership. Does a person own their own body or not.

As to the fetus, it has a right to life when it is a human being. There are differing views on when that happens. I would say that’s when it is viable outside the womb, morganovich will say that it’s when the brain is fully developed. When, in your view, does a fertilized egg become person with natural rights?

By the way, just to be clear, I don’t know anyone who is pro-abortion.

The so-called “right to life” does not generally include the right to be – literally – a parasite on another person. It does not include the right to demand that someone give a kidney. It does not include the right to demand that someone allow their body to be used in any way whatsoever.

This is the root of the debate: the right to life, on the one hand, and the right to choose how one’s body is used, on the other. The latter crowd will bolster their position by claiming that an early-stage fetus isn’t “really” life. The former will bolster theirs by claiming that once you have sex, you give up your right to make decisions about your body.

This is a legitimate debate of legitimate values. It cannot be resolved: it is a religious debate (in the broad sense of “religious”).

Despite each side thinking the answer is “obvious”, it is not. And, thus, the libertarian position, that there is no role for government here.

An unborn fetus is, biologically, a parasite on its mother. Once born, it is not: although most infants rely on their mothers’ breast milk, they can live just fine without it (as long as they receive a substitute somewhere).

Your implication – “having sex was your act, now you have to live with the consequences” – is a morally consistent position.

“So should we kill 3 month old babies at will as well since they must suckle and are technically parasites on someone else?”

Are they human beings, persons?

“How about killing you 10 year old because they are really parasites on the family as well?”

Are they human beings, persons?

“Can you kill a stay at home spouse? No wonder women took up jobs with folks like you around looking for parasites to kill.”

Are they human beings, persons? I the answer is yes, then you may not kill them.

Fetuses are truly parasites, as they depend entirely on their mother’s body for support, and can’t survive outside it. They are not part of the mother’ body as they contain foreign DNA, and the mother’s body will continually try to expel it, and sometimes succeeds. It is only through the isolation of the placental barrier that the parasite can survive to full term.

Those already born, or viable outside the womb don’t fit that description.

Sorry about that – see my comment at 12:56, above, same topic. I didn’t realize I was now in a different section of the comment thread.

That should also help to make sense of my comment, above (at 1:04) that this is an essentially religious debate, with many people on both sides – exactly the kind of situation where government is best to stay out of it.

“Lyle, is pro-abortion really part of the libertarian platform? I see a big difference between the issues of abortion and same-sex marriage from a libertarian perspective.”

No, I doubt that many libertarians are pro-abortion, they just aren’t pro-telling-people-what-they-can-do-with-their-own-bodies.

Both abortion and same-sex marriage are issues of self-ownership and self determination. In addition, the best description of the libertarian position on same-sex marriage may be that everyone has a right to freely associate with anyone we please, and that the sate has no business telling anyone who they can or can’t form their most personal and intimate relationships with.

“No, I doubt that many libertarians are pro-abortion, they just aren’t pro-telling-people-what-they-can-do-with-their-own-bodies.”

Wholeheartedly disagree. Can I use my body to murder a person already born, just because it’s my body?

I’ve always thought that the argument for a woman to do with her body as she wishes as the strongest argument for legal abortion. However, I believe that argument to be much weaker than the argument for the rights of the unborn child. I’m sure we disagree there and will have to agree to disagree.

You’ve defined it as a human being with the onset of “brain function”.

Technically, I don’t have a problem with that. When is the onset of brain function? And you mentioned removing life support from those that are brain dead. What if there is no living will? Who decides? The next in line who couldn’t wait for the old geezer to die anyway? (Claiming that was the intention of the brain dead individual all along).

Personally, I like to define the onset of life as the attachment of the fertilized egg to the uterus. Many years ago I read a profound quote from a teenage girl who said “if you must kill it to stop it from growing it has to be a life”, I found it hard to disagree with that.

Now there may be times when abortion is necessary (ectopic pregnancy, etc.) but generally I’m against abortion when there is no unnatural risk to the life or physical health of the mother.

“Can I use my body to murder a person already born, just because it’s my body?”

If that person already born threatens you or your property, you may use whatever amount of force is necessary, up to and including deadly force to counter that threat. That would include a woman’s right to end her pregnancy if its continuance threatens her life or health.

That would ordinarily be called self-defense, not murder, so no, you may not murder another person whether born or unborn, depending on when you consider a fertilized egg has become a person. Obviously there are varying views on when that occurs.

“And you mentioned removing life support from those that are brain dead. What if there is no living will? Who decides? The next in line who couldn’t wait for the old geezer to die anyway? (Claiming that was the intention of the brain dead individual all along).”

Most medical providers require a person to provide them with advance directives on how to proceed in case the person is unable to speak for themselves, as is the case when they’re brain dead.

The question is does that life represent something that has rights? If so then the right to life is the most basic right. If not then there are no rights to violate.

Since the right to life is such a basic and important right, the most important right, it is very important to get this answer right. So I don’t think the question is prove that those cells represent a person that has rights, but instead the question should be prove that those cells do not represent a person and so has no rights.

Indeed. There is no point at which life begins. It is continuous. The question is, when is that life form a person with natural rights?

If the fertilized egg has a right to life as a human being, then who gets to decide which life, if either, is more valuable when a problem pregnancy threatens the life of the mother? Should the fetus be sacrificed to save the mother, or the other way around?

“Indeed. There is no point at which life begins. It is continuous. The question is, when is that life form a person with natural rights?”

That’s ridiculous. Human life begins at conception. Using your logic my grandchildren already exist. Using this ridiculous logic you could say, all life is continuous so natural rights are continuous. Actually, that makes more sense, than claiming someone knows the exact point when natural rights begin and end.

And that is a perfectly valid view. At conception the fertilized egg contains the DNA of a unique, previously non-existent human being. Others might question whether a single cell or group of cells should be called a human being, as in early stages a fetus is biologically identical to, and indistinguishable from, a fish, a bird, a cat, a dog, or any mammal.

In addition it has no brain function and is totally parasitic on its mother’s body for subsistence, and would be rejected by the mother’s body as a foreign invader if not isolated from her by the placental barrier.

In fact relying only on memory, I believe that in 1 in 3 or 1 in 4 conceptions, the mother’s body succeeds in repelling the invader.

Is a living person who loses all brain function and only lives biologically through life support systems still a person? Is ending life support murder?

“Using your logic my grandchildren already exist.”

Yes, that’s quite possible. A pregnant woman may carry a girl child, who at some point before birth has produced all the eggs she will ever have. Your mother’s mother, before childbirth, held within her body the egg that would become you.

“Using this ridiculous logic you could say, all life is continuous so natural rights are continuous.”

If you re-read my comment more carefully, you will notice that I made no claim that *human life* is continuous, only that *life* is continuous. The parents are alive, the sperm and egg are alive, the fertilized egg is alive. There is no discontinuance of life, although you couldn’t reasonably call a sperm or an egg a human being, nor would you endow them with natural rights..

Unless you believe that ALL life has natural rights, you couldn’t interpret what I wrote as implying that natural rights are continuous.

“Actually, that makes more sense, than claiming someone knows the exact point when natural rights begin and end.”

Many people claim to know when natural rights begin. You, for instance just claimed that human life begins at conception. If you believe humans have natural rights, then you have claimed that human rights begin at conception, no?

“Many people claim to know when natural rights begin. You, for instance just claimed that human life begins at conception. If you believe humans have natural rights, then you have claimed that human rights begin at conception, no?”

Yes. I would claim that.

“Is a living person who loses all brain function and only lives biologically through life support systems still a person? Is ending life support murder?”

Yes. They are still a person. Ending life support would not be murder if those were the explicit wishes of that person.

“..in early stages a fetus is biologically identical to, and indistinguishable from, a fish, a bird, a cat, a dog, or any mammal.”

Maybe. So what if it is or isn’t? If you implanted that fetus in another animal would it still not be a human? Not sure of the point you are trying to make with that one.

“although you couldn’t reasonably call a sperm or an egg a human being, nor would you endow them with natural rights..”

Sperm and eggs are potential life. A fertilized egg implanted in the uterus is a real human life. When you destroy sperm or unfertilized eggs you don’t destroy life as life has not yet been conceived by definition.

I guess I see personhood, ensoulment, viability, etc. as regarding natural rights arguments as semantic arguments with little validity. But I understand those that want to find some moral rationalization for abortion need these arguments to cling to. I was once pro-abortion myself and used every one of them. It wasn’t until my wife, the OB/GYN, came home after one of her first days in residency and related her story of listening to the heart beat of a 10 week old fetus that I, as well as she, began to change our position on the abortion issue. After years of studying it, I can reach no other conclusion than life begins at conception with all rights (natural or otherwise) conferred from that moment.

Me: ““..in early stages a fetus is biologically identical to, and indistinguishable from, a fish, a bird, a cat, a dog, or any mammal.”

You: “Maybe. So what if it is or isn’t? If you implanted that fetus in another animal would it still not be a human? Not sure of the point you are trying to make with that one.”

“Sperm and eggs are potential life. A fertilized egg implanted in the uterus is a real human life. When you destroy sperm or unfertilized eggs you don’t destroy [human] life as [human] life has not yet been conceived by definition.”

My point with the comparison of indistinguishable fetuses is this: you have defined a human egg and human sperm as not human, yet they are *potential* humans as they contain human DNA and can’t become anything else.

It’s doesn’t seem unreasonable to argue that a fetus without a brain that is identical to a chicken or fish fetus, is also a *potential* human, as it contains human DNA.

Yes, if you implanted it in another animal it would still be a human fetus – a potential human being- and it couldn’t become anything else.

“I guess I see personhood, ensoulment, viability, etc. as regarding natural rights arguments as semantic arguments with little validity. But I understand those that want to find some moral rationalization for abortion need these arguments to cling to.”

And your view is certainly valid, as there’s no way to falsify it. Consider, though, that others feel just as strongly and honestly that human life begins later, when the fetus is clearly that of a human and has some brain function.

“I was once pro-abortion myself and used every one of them.”

Amazing. I don’t know anyone who is pro-abortion. I only know some people who aren’t anti-abortion. I personally feel that abortion is a terrible choice, and would encourage full term pregnancy, childbirth and adoption for unwanted children.

However, I wouldn’t force others to live by my views and make the choices I would make. I also believe a person owns their own body, and all decisions about it should be theirs, not mine or yours.

“It wasn’t until my wife, the OB/GYN, came home after one of her first days in residency and related her story of listening to the heart beat of a 10 week old fetus that I, as well as she, began to change our position on the abortion issue. After years of studying it, I can reach no other conclusion than [human] life begins at conception with all rights (natural or otherwise) conferred from that moment.”

I hope you don’t mind that I added the word *human* to your comment. I presume that’s what you meant to write.

“Consider, though, that others feel just as strongly and honestly that human life begins later, when the fetus is clearly that of a human and has some brain function.”

That seems to be the sticking point for sure. It does appear, to me anyway, that that line of thinking is fraught with moral hazard. Brain function begins when? How much brain function do you need? When is the fetus clearly human? Do you begin an abortion and stop if you can recognize some human feature?

“Amazing. I don’t know anyone who is pro-abortion. I only know some people who aren’t anti-abortion. I personally feel that abortion is a terrible choice, and would encourage full term pregnancy, childbirth and adoption for unwanted children.”

Yes. I am guilty of specifically using that terminology for effect. Technically, I believe I am correct. If you believe abortion should remain legal, you are pro-abortion. Just as a person can believe in the efficacy of public education yet send their own children to private school. Public schooling may be anathema to them and just fine for everyone else. Believe me, my wife can relate literally hundreds of stories of women who are apparently non-chalant about the issue, yet for the vast majority it seems to be a heart-wrentching decision. I am in total agreement with you on the adoption route.

“That seems to be the sticking point for sure. It does appear, to me anyway, that that line of thinking is fraught with moral hazard. Brain function begins when? How much brain function do you need? When is the fetus clearly human?

Indeed. It is a difficult question, that has no provable answer, hence the controversy. It is something people can honestly disagree about. In addition there’s the issue of self ownership and the mother’s right to control her own body.

Incidentally, that doesn’t mean there’s a “right” to an abortion, in the sense that someone must perform one, as no one has a “right” to the services of another person.

“Yes. I am guilty of specifically using that terminology for effect. Technically, I believe I am correct. If you believe abortion should remain legal, you are pro-abortion.”

No, there’s a difference. I am “pro” self-ownership, free choice, and self determination. That doesn’t mean I support each and every choice. I am not “pro” walking-on-hot-coals, but I won’t use the force of government to keep others from doing it. In my view abortion is a personal and moral issue outside the realm or authority of the state. It should be legal only in the sense that it’s not illegal. Legal, moral, and ethical aren’t the same thing.

“Just as a person can believe in the efficacy of public education yet send their own children to private school. Public schooling may be anathema to them and just fine for everyone else.”

Education is another issue that, in my view, is outside the intended role of government, so I don’t believe in the efficacy of public education. Groups of like-minded individuals are free to pool their resources to provide education for their children, or other people’s children if they wish, but I don’t want their hands in my pocket, forcing me to finance that effort.

“Believe me, my wife can relate literally hundreds of stories of women who are apparently non-chalant about the issue, yet for the vast majority it seems to be a heart-wrentching decision.”

No. That’s a distinction not a difference. If you believe abortion should remain legal and out of the realm of government you are pro-abortion. A simple test would be the definition of anti-abortion. My definition of anti-abortion would be making abortion illegal with the exception of the health of the mother. The opposite is pro-abortion. You may not consider abortion an option personally but you are fine if others choose to go that route, hence you are pro.

“No. That’s a distinction not a difference. If you believe abortion should remain legal and out of the realm of government you are pro-abortion. A simple test would be the definition of anti-abortion. My definition of anti-abortion would be making abortion illegal with the exception of the health of the mother. The opposite is pro-abortion. You may not consider abortion an option personally but you are fine if others choose to go that route, hence you are pro.”

How one acts, based on their position, is not the *definition* of that position. Being in favor of using the power of the state through its legal system to impose one’s views on others is a separate issue, and isn’t dependent on one’s position on abortion.

Being opposed to using the power of the state to impose one’s views on others, is also not an indicator of one’s position on abortion, or any other issue.

Being opposed to laws restricting my use of water in my toilet and shower doesn’t mean I’m pro-water-shortage. Being against laws mandating motorcycle helmets doesn’t mean I’m pro-head-injury. Being opposed to government limits on the amount salt in processed food doesn’t mean I’m pro-hypertension. Being opposed to government monopoly taxpayer-supported education doesn’t mean I’m pro-ignorance.

By the way, if you would allow abortion to preserve the health of the mother, you are placing a higher value on one human life than another, by your own definition.

Would you allow abortion in cases of rape or incest?

Biologically speaking, in the animal world, the life of a mother is always more valuable than the lives of her offspring. She can most likely have more offspring if she saves herself, but her offspring won’t likely survive if she dies protecting them.

“How one acts, based on their position, is not the *definition* of that position. Being in favor of using the power of the state through its legal system to impose one’s views on others is a separate issue, and isn’t dependent on one’s position on abortion.”

Exactly. You favor abortion “rights” by “definition”, yet you wouldn’t “act” to have an abortion yourself. I understand that by taking such a position on abortion, I am indeed imposing my views on others, just as someone who believes the murder of person A by person B should be illegal. This is perfectly consistent with my earlier statements on conception being the onset of life. While you don’t see a fetus as wholly human, I do. Again, this is where we agree to disagree (we’re kind of going in circles).

“Being opposed to laws restricting my use of water in my toilet and shower doesn’t mean I’m pro-water-shortage. Being against laws mandating motorcycle helmets doesn’t mean I’m pro-head-injury. Being opposed to government limits on the amount salt in processed food doesn’t mean I’m pro-hypertension. Being opposed to government monopoly taxpayer-supported education doesn’t mean I’m pro-ignorance.

See the pattern?”

With respect, those aren’t good analogies. If I ride a motorcycle without a helmet I may injure myself but I am no more likely or less likely to injure someone else. I don’t get the connection.

“By the way, if you would allow abortion to preserve the health of the mother, you are placing a higher value on one human life than another, by your own definition.

Would you allow abortion in cases of rape or incest?”

I only allow for the exception of the health of the mother because in the course of normal medical care there may arise a situation where abortion may be necessary (in theory, in practice my wife tells me it never happens, and she is well over 2000 deliveries). So it may not even be relevant, but even a one in a million chance, the option must exist.

“Again, this is where we agree to disagree (we’re kind of going in circles).”

Yes, we are at an impasse on the abortion issue, but there’s an important point being masked by the abortion discussion and that is the issue of rights.

I believe that we have, as part of our nature as human beings, certain basic inalienable rights to life, liberty, and property – including ownership of one’s own body. They cannot be separated from us. These rights are negative: we have a right to NOT be killed, NOT be forced or restrained against our will, and NOT robbed of our just property – including limits on what we can do with our own bodies.

“Exactly. You favor abortion “rights” by “definition”, yet you wouldn’t “act” to have an abortion yourself.”

There are no abortion “rights” by definition, only the right to self ownership of your body – the right to be left alone unless you violate the rights of others. Your view that full human rights begin at conception would mean an abortion violates the embryo’s right to life.

A positive “right” to an abortion, just like a “right” to food, shelter, clothing, education, medical care, or a job cannot exist as another person must be forced to provide those things.

“I understand that by taking such a position on abortion, I am indeed imposing my views on others…”

You are enlisting the force of the state to impose your views on others. A minor distinction.

“… just as someone who believes the murder of person A by person B should be illegal. This is perfectly consistent with my earlier statements on conception being the onset of life. While you don’t see a fetus as wholly human, I do.”

Yes, it is consistent.

“With respect, those aren’t good analogies. If I ride a motorcycle without a helmet I may injure myself but I am no more likely or less likely to injure someone else. I don’t get the connection.”

I used the helmet law as well as the other three, as examples of some people using the power of the state to impose their views on others. You are correct that not wearing a helmet endangers only you, and shouldn’t be anyone else’s business.

The usual rationale is that they, the busybodies, might be forced to pay for your medical treatment if you get injured, and therefore can force you to wear a helmet to limit their risk. This is nonsense and twisted reasoning at best.

My point in presenting those examples was that just because I oppose state interference in personal choices and self ownership, doesn’t mean I approve of the choice.

“I only allow for the exception of the health of the mother because in the course of normal medical care there may arise a situation where abortion may be necessary…”

So you value the life of an already born person more than that of an unborn person.

“…(in theory, in practice my wife tells me it never happens, and she is well over 2000 deliveries). So it may not even be relevant, but even a one in a million chance, the option must exist.”

Your wife is more confident than most people if she can say something *never* happens!

Has she no experience of an ectopic pregnancy which I understand may occur as often as one in every 50 conceptions?

“As to rape and incest, I’m against abortion even in those instances.”

Good for you. To argue otherwise, would mean the value of the life of the fetus depends on the mental state of the mother. A ridiculous notion.

“I believe that we have, as part of our nature as human beings, certain basic inalienable rights to life, liberty, and property – including ownership of one’s own body. They cannot be separated from us. These rights are negative: we have a right to NOT be killed, NOT be forced or restrained against our will, and NOT robbed of our just property – including limits on what we can do with our own bodies.”

I believe the same. I would would also extend those rights to the unborn. When the two collide the rights of the aggrieved trump those of the aggressor, just as in my example of murder of person A by B. If you “place no limits” on what people do with their bodies it would be perfectly right for person A to strangle person B with impunity.

“So you value the life of an already born person more than that of an unborn person.”

No. I didn’t say that. I said it may be necessary for an abortion to be performed to save the health(life) of the mother. Again this is probably far fetched, since the chances of such a situation are so remote. But I’ll give it a shot with a far fetched example. Let’s say I’m hiking with my son and he slips on a ledge and as he dangles over a canyon with a long drop I grab his arm. Eventually, I tire and weaken. I realize I have two options let go and let him perish and I live or hold on and we both die. If I let go is that murder? I wouldn’t say so, and such is the case with an ectopic pregnancy. Either the mother bleeds to death, gets medical attention after the bleeding begins or the fetus is spontaneously aborted. There are no known cases of fetuses carried to term ectopic, although there are some other strange examples of pregnancy.

“I believe the same. I would would also extend those rights to the unborn. When the two collide the rights of the aggrieved trump those of the aggressor, just as in my example of murder of person A by B.

“If you “place no limits” on what people do with their bodies it would be perfectly right for person A to strangle person B with impunity.”

Not at all. Person A owns his own body and has a right to decide for himself what he does with it. He has no right to interfere with person B in any way. He would be violating person B’s rights if he tried to strangle him. Person B could rightfully use any necessary force, up to and including deadly force to thwart A’s attack. Rights are negative. We have all the same rights we would have if all alone on a desert island.

“Let’s say I’m hiking with my son and he slips on a ledge and as he dangles over a canyon with a long drop I grab his arm. Eventually, I tire and weaken. I realize I have two options let go and let him perish and I live or hold on and we both die.”

I think in this example you would eventually weaken enough to drop him in any case. No decision is necessary, but I understand the point you are trying to make.

Well, fetus B is in little danger of being strangled unless it is viable, and outside its mothers body, in which case it loses its fetushood, becomes an already born person, and has full natural human rights, making strangulation a clear case of murder.

“Nice revisiting and challenging my beliefs on a difficult topic with you.”

“I’ve noticed that everyone who is for abortion is already born.” — Ronald Reagan

I am pro-choice, but all of those choices come before having sex. You can choose to abstain. You can choose to use birth control. Or, you can choose to accept the consequences of ignoring those options. What you cannot do is destroy a human life simply because you find it inconvenient.

At the moment of conception you are, biologically speaking, everything that you are, or will ever be. Even the “pro-choice” side, in their more candid moments, admits this:

“I have friends who have referred to their abortions in terms of “scraping out a bunch of cells” and then a few years later were exultant over the pregnancies that they unhesitatingly described in terms of “the baby” and “this kid.” I know women who have been relieved at their abortions and grieved over their miscarriages. Why can’t we agree that how they felt about their pregnancies was vastly different, but that it’s pretty silly to pretend that what was growing inside of them wasn’t the same? Fetuses aren’t selective like that. They don’t qualify as human life only if they’re intended to be born.

When we try to act like a pregnancy doesn’t involve human life, we wind up drawing stupid semantic lines in the sand: first trimester abortion vs. second trimester vs. late term, dancing around the issue trying to decide if there’s a single magic moment when a fetus becomes a person. Are you human only when you’re born? Only when you’re viable outside of the womb? Are you less of a human life when you look like a tadpole than when you can suck on your thumb? …

Yet I know that throughout my own pregnancies, I never wavered for a moment in the belief that I was carrying a human life inside of me. I believe that’s what a fetus is: a human life. And that doesn’t make me one iota less solidly pro-choice.” — Hot Air

“Parents should be allowed to have their newborn babies killed because they are “morally irrelevant” and ending their lives is no different to abortion, a group of medical ethicists linked to Oxford University has argued. …

The article, entitled “After-birth abortion: Why should the baby live?”, was written by two of Prof Savulescu’s former associates, Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva.

They argued: “The moral status of an infant is equivalent to that of a fetus in the sense that both lack those properties that justify the attribution of a right to life to an individual.””

I don’t understand your issue. The fact that the state does not get involved, does not mean that everyone will run out and start doing all these things. It does not mean that anyone who goes out and does these things will be able to function within society.

Right now, if you declare your dog and your parrot to be “husband and wife”, the state will say it has no role in that, but your neighbors will probably look at you funny.

If marriage were nothing more than a sentimental fashion accessory to put the perfect touch of gravitas and pathos on the public validation of a hot romance, nobody would care about ‘gay marriage.’ But marriage is not that. Marriage is tough commitment for adults only wherein the human race is propagated, children cared for and inculturated in the larger society. For this reason society has always set limits on, expectations of and perquisites for marriages.

Marriage has been greatly eroded over the last sixty years, and this will accelerate that process. The aim, it seems to me, is to sweep away not only Western, but all civilization, reduce mankind to a mass of atomized, dissociated individuals to be reshaped in the image of the complaisant, State owned New Soviet Man.” — Commenter, Never Yet Melted

“It is difficult, because if we have no laws on this, people will take it to one extension further – does it have to be humans?” [Rand] Paul said Wednesday in an interview with Glenn Beck, after Beck suggested some unintended consequences of the rulings, including polygamy.” — Washington Post

I understand that you are not a libertarian. In your mind, if the state certifies a marriage, it is “real”, and if it does not, it is not. You are getting a bit confused, though: if the state does not bless marriages, it does not make any arbitrary marriage “real”. In your worldview, there should be NO “real” marriages if the state stops certifying them. So, you should not worry about animals marrying each other, etc., because the state would not certify those, anymore than it does now. As for whether people would still form stable households, yes, they would. That human behavior existed long before states started certifying marriages. And, yes, they would sign civil contracts for sharing of properties, incomes, etc. Of course, such civil contracts could exist between larger groups. Then again, they do now: we call some of them “companies”, for example: large groups of people jointly own property, have joint liabilities for debts, etc. It’s not as frightening as you may think!

“I understand that you are not a libertarian. In your mind, if the state certifies a marriage, it is “real”, and if it does not, it is not.”

Don’t presume to speak for me.

In my mind a marriage is a union defined and sanctified by God. The state may call anything it wants a “marriage”, and I am sure that you can help them with all of those interesting couplings. Similarly, the state may, in defiance of natural law, declare murder and robbery legal.

That does mean that I do not find your “arrangements” corrosive to society with consequences that will be born almost entirely by children. Nor, does it give you the right to exclude me, and those who share my opinion, from the public square. We will be heard. And if our arguments carry the day we will expect that to be reflected in public policy.

Che, I stand corrected. I did not intend to speak for you: I was only playing back what I understood, in case I misunderstood – which I did.

If God sanctifies marriage, then indeed I don’t understand why you see the state’s involvement as desirable at all. The state may decide to sanctify things you believe are offensive to God – but if God does not sanctify them, then as I understand what you’re saying, they are still not marriage.

I have not advocated for any of the arrangements that worry you so. I have advocated only that the state should not define them. Let God define them, for you. Let others define them by their conscience.

I agree, children’s interests need to be guarded, but that is a much narrower issue than the state having at least hundreds, if not thousands of regulations with respect to marriage itself.

I have no desire to exclude you from the public square. It is you who wish to enforce your opinions on others who do not share them. So be it. You feel the need for the sword; I will rely on the pen.

It is you who wish to enforce your opinions on others who do not share them.

It is you, and those like you, who are the aggressors here. I am not the one advocating the use of government power to impose the redefinition of marriage, an institution that has existed for millennia, on others.

Bingo! We’ve got a deal. And don’t you presume to speak for me, or tell me who I may or not associate with, or who I must associate with, and don’t presume to tell me who I may love or form intimate relationships with. And most of all don’t call on the power of the state to force your views on me.

“In my mind a marriage is a union defined and sanctified by God.”

And no one can disagree.

“The state can call anything it wants a “marriage”

The state has no role in personal relationships. We don’t need the state’s permission or approval.

“Similarly, the state may, in defiance of natural law, declare murder and robbery legal.”

The state already considers murder and robbery legal – when performed by the state.

“It is you, and those like you, who are the aggressors here. I am not the one advocating the use of government power to impose the redefinition of marriage, an institution that has existed for millennia, on others.”

You are confused. No one is advocating the use of government power to define or redefine anything, nor is anyone, as far as I can tell, advocating or approving of any particular lifestyle or relationship. The entire issue of interpersonal associations, relationships, and marriage should be outside the purview of government. There is no role for government here.

“And don’t you presume to speak for me, or tell me who I may or not associate with, or who I must associate with, and don’t presume to tell me who I may love or form intimate relationships with … You are confused. No one is advocating the use of government power to define or redefine anything.”

It seems that you are the one who is confused. Perhaps, you should read your own comments. You insist that I not only associate with, but financially accommodate people who are in this country illegally. You insist that my children, by force of law, attend schools where they are instructed that homosexuality is “normal” and where they are encouraged to experiment in anal and oral sex. I am forced to finance state colleges and universities that promulgate values I may find abhorrent. Christian small businessmen are being routinely forced by courts to surrender their deeply held religious beliefs if they want to continue doing business. The Boy Scouts, an organization that has little to do with instruction regarding ones sex life, are intimidated, sanctioned and penalized into accepting gay troop leaders. And I have no doubt that soon the Gaystapo will insist that churches be forced to perform gay marriages under threat of state sanction or retaliation.

As for your love life or intimate relations, I don’t give a damn about your love life or your fascination with, and fetish for, the male anus. Just don’t use the public school system and public monies to proselytize your “religious values” to my children, or force me to pay to have them imposed on others.

“The state has no role in personal relationships. We don’t need the state’s permission or approval.”

And, yet, you seek at every instance. Maybe, you haven’t noticed suit after suit challenging the outcome of elections that had resulted in the affirmation of the status of traditional marriage. Suits brought by people who, according to you, don’t need the state’s permission or approval. In almost every instance, gay marriage has had to be imposed by a court in direct opposition to the expressed will of the voters. Yeah, “No one is advocating the use of government power to define or redefine anything.”

“It seems that you are the one who is confused. Perhaps, you should read your own comments. You insist that I not only associate with, but financially accommodate people who are in this country illegally.”

No, I don’t insist that you do anything. Please reread my comments carefully.

Except for the force of the state, you would have a right to associate or NOT associate with anyone you please. That doesn’t mean people you fear and loathe are kept at a great distance from you behind some imaginary line in the desert by law.

At every opportunity I advocate eliminating the welfare state, and all income redistribution. It is my view that taxation is theft. You can’t possibly have interpreted anything I’ve ever written differently.

“You insist that my children, by force of law, attend schools where they are instructed that homosexuality is “normal” and where they are encouraged to experiment in anal and oral sex.”

I insist on no such thing. You are either a poor reader or making things up. Perhaps your strong biases don’t allow you to comprehend the actual words as they are written. I am opposed to public financing of education and mandatory K-12 attendance.

“I am forced to finance state colleges and universities that promulgate values I may find abhorrent.”

See above. I am opposed to all taxation and public financing of education. I am not forcing you to finance anything. Direct your complaints where they belong.

“Christian small businessmen are being routinely forced by courts to surrender their deeply held religious beliefs if they want to continue doing business.”

And that is wrong. A good reason to eliminate the state and its courts.

“The Boy Scouts, an organization that has little to do with instruction regarding ones sex life, are intimidated, sanctioned and penalized into accepting gay troop leaders. And I have no doubt that soon the Gaystapo will insist that churches be forced to perform gay marriages under threat of state sanction or retaliation.”

See above re: elimination of the state and its courts. a private organization should be free to structure itself in any way it chooses, and accept as members only those who it wishes to accept.

“As for your love life or intimate relations, I don’t give a damn about your love life or your fascination with, and fetish for, the male anus.”

Read my comments again. There is no possible way to interpret anything I’ve written as advocacy of homosexuality. Do you just make this stuff up because you have no real argument against freedom of association?

The only thing I’ve asked you to do is leave other people alone, and allow them to live their own lives according to their own values, without being forced by the state to live by your values. That’s the same state you complain is forcing you act against your principles, and even pay for the privilege.

“Just don’t use the public school system and public monies to proselytize your “religious values” to my children, or force me to pay to have them imposed on others.”

I don’t. I’ve made that pretty clear.

“The state has no role in personal relationships. We don’t need the state’s permission or approval.”

“And, yet, you seek at every instance.”

Seek what?

“Maybe, you haven’t noticed suit after suit challenging the outcome of elections that had resulted in the affirmation of the status of traditional marriage. Suits brought by people who, according to you, don’t need the state’s permission or approval. In almost every instance, gay marriage has had to be imposed by a court in direct opposition to the expressed will of the voters.”

That’s because it is not the business of the state to define relationships. Those election outcomes are a way of forcing others to accept the tyranny of the majority. You clearly don’t like it when it works against you. In those cases, it’s incorrect to say that the courts have imposed gay marriage. Instead they have overturned an unlawful prohibition on personal choice and association.

A majority could create a statute that legalized slavery, and it would be the duty of the courts to declare that statute unlawful.

Again, the state is not our friend. Majority rule is tyranny. The courts, as an arm of the state, can’t be relied on to dispense justice.

“Suits brought by people who, according to you, don’t need the state’s permission or approval. In almost every instance, gay marriage has had to be imposed by a court in direct opposition to the expressed will of the voters.

“Yeah, “No one is advocating the use of government power to define or redefine anything.”

I could have been clearer: No one commenting on this blog is advocating the use of government force to define or redefine anything except you.

The fact that the POTUS is also the Commander-in-Chief of the U.S. military eliminates the electability of a Libertarian. But…”

Why is that? Not many libertarians are pacifists, and self defense and national defense are important libertarian concerns. Note libertarian support for second Amendment rights. The key word is *defense*.

The Second Amendment gives you the right not only to guns, but to “bear arms.” That includes (at the time of writing), cannons, rockets and even bio-weapons.

You further have the Constitutional right to form militias.

The Founding Fathers loathed, detested and reviled standing militaries. The Second Amendment is there to strongly encourage volunteer citizen defense of our nation—not a professional, permanently mobilized and mercenary military.

The current (and fantastically expensive) professional, permanent U.S. military is an abomination, and not consistent with our own Constitution.

How bad have things gotten? I imagine if some citizens did form a large militia, and acquired arms, and said they wanted to defend our borders, their leaders eventually would be tossed into jail—if necessary by members of the professional military.

Some people even conflate support of a professional military with patriotism.

Sad, sad, sad.

Libertarians in the USA? What a joke. Mostly GOP’ers who want to smoke pot.

Ron writes: “Note libertarian support for second Amendment rights. The key word is *defense*.”

And the Second Amendment is written: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

That would make a Libertarian electable as a Governor, in charge of a state militia whose members have gun ownership guaranteed.

Commanding a military, that provides defense against invading foreign militias, preceded by blitzkriegs of rockets, lasers, shoe bombs, neutron bombs, electronic pulse concussions, and all the other known unknowns, requires a decisive commitment to force readiness and actions that go beyond the borders of the U.S.

Yes, we can agree that forces and weapons have been misused in recent incursions — but bases of virulent aggression are being established worldwide to provide the support for the blitzkrieg on liberties which can happen in the blink of an eye ( four current fronts in northern Africa alone). This can’t be ignored and then pretend to live under the umbrella of peace that Switzerland, for instance, is provided by other countries.

Yes again, libertarianism can be a strong voice for true free trade that provides the intricate webs of personal connections that are a bulwark against military aggression. A strong U.S. military very much makes foreign powers pragmatic and choose trade over military conflict.

A Libertarian candidate would seem electable as a governor, as a protector of a state, but not of the nation. A libertarian-leaning presidential candidate has an excellent chance in the next election, if that person supports a strong U.S. military.

You are Constitutionally guaranteed the right not only to guns but to “bear arms” and form militias. Arms–not just guns, but cannons, rockets, ships, bio-weapons, all in use during the Revolutionary War. Why did the Founding Fathers give you those rights? To defend your home? Or to defend your nation?

“That [2nd Amendment] would make a Libertarian electable as a Governor, in charge of a state militia whose members have gun ownership guaranteed.”

I’m not sure what this means. My point is that libertarians aren’t opposed to defense.

“Commanding a military, that provides defense against invading foreign militias, preceded by blitzkriegs of rockets, lasers, shoe bombs, neutron bombs, electronic pulse concussions, and all the other known unknowns, requires a decisive commitment to force readiness and actions that go beyond the borders of the U.S.”

And that commitment to readiness is the job of Congress. Article 1 Section 8: to raise and maintain armed forces. The President is just the Commander In Chief.

I’m trying to picture a blitzkrieg of shoe bombs.

“A Libertarian candidate would seem electable as a governor, as a protector of a state, but not of the nation. A libertarian-leaning presidential candidate has an excellent chance in the next election, if that person supports a strong U.S. military.”

Is it your argument that a libertarian presidential candidate would not attract many votes because of their opposition to world-wide military adventures? If not I don’t know what it is.

“Yes, I think the majority of the electorate has a trip-wire beyond the American shores for military action and not on-shore.”

You may be correct. It would be the job of a libertarian candidate to question, as Ron Paul did, the wisdom of spending so many hundreds of $billions keeping so many American troops stationed in places like Germany and South Korea, and 900 or whatever other locations around the world, and engaging in military adventures that haven’t the remotest connection to national defense.

Defense does and should include a great deal of technology and defensive surveillance designed to detect and avert hostile physical actions against the US, but doesn’t require so many millions of boots on the ground and physical presence all over the world.

As to an actual physical invasion of the US, perhaps you should consider the enormous logistical problems involved in transporting meaningful numbers of troops and weapons across vast oceans to reach our shores. There is just no possible enemy or coalition of enemies with the necessary resources.

Most of the things called threats these days aren’t really serious threats at all, but just hobgoblins inflated in importance by those who benefit from our fears and resultant need to “do something”.